Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T23:11:12.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of nitrogen and duration of weed interference on corn growth and development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sean P. Evans ,
Stevan Z. Knezevic ,
John L. Lindquist  and
Charles A. Shapiro
Sean P. Evans
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
John L. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0817
Charles A. Shapiro
Affiliation:
Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, University of Nebraska, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728-2828
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An improved understanding of the effects of nitrogen (N) on crop–weed interactions is needed for the development of integrated weed management systems where responsible use of N fertilizers is considered. Field experiments conducted in 1999 and 2000 at two locations in eastern Nebraska quantify the effects of N and increasing duration of weed interference on corn growth and development. A naturally occurring population of weeds was allowed to compete with the corn crop for increasing lengths of time and at three rates of N application (0, 60, and 120 kg N ha−1). Weed interference and withholding applied N increased the time to 50% silking by an average of 3.9 and 2.9 d, respectively. Regardless of treatments, relative growth rates of corn leaf area and biomass were maximized between the V1 and V2 growth stages of corn and increased linearly with N rate but were affected to a lesser extent by weed presence. The improvement in early season corn growth with addition of N resulted in greater leaf area, biomass, and height, which improved the competitive ability of corn against weeds. Reductions in maximum corn leaf area and height due to weed interference usually began earlier and were more extensive at reduced rates of N. Partitioning of biomass to reproductive structures increased with N during reproductive stages, likely contributing to greater harvest indices at the end of the season. Results from this study indicate that the effects of N fertilization on early-season crop growth provided a competitive advantage for corn relative to weeds, thereby increasing the length of time that weeds could compete with a crop before removal was required, but further research is needed to identify mechanisms regarding improved crop tolerance to weeds.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘DK589RR’Critical time of weed removalduration of weed interferencegrowth analysisgrowth curveslight competitionN competitionresource acquisition

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , August 2003 , pp. 546 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bennett, J. M., Mutti, L.S.M., Rao, P.S.C., and Jones, J. W. 1989. Interactive effects of N and water stresses on biomass accumulation, N uptake, and seed yield of maize. Field Crops Res. 19:297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, B. and Jackson, R. B. 1997. Plant competition underground. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:545–570.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1995. Weed suppression ability of spring barley varieties. Weed Res. 35:241–247.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and competitive effect on sweet corn. Weed Sci. 49:558–566.Google Scholar
Di Tomaso, J. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durieux, R.P., Kamprath, E. J., Jackson, W. A., and Moll, R. H. 1994. Root distribution of corn: the effect of N fertilization. Agron. J. 86:958–962.Google Scholar
Eik, K. and Hanway, J. J. 1966. Leaf area in relation to the yield of grain corn. Agron. J. 58:16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. Z., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., and Blankenship, E. E. 2003. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci. 51:408–417.Google Scholar
Fellows, G. M. and Roeth, F. W. 1992. Shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 40:68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genter, C. F., Jones, G. D., and Carter, M. T. 1970. Dry matter accumulation and depletion in leaves, stems, and ears of maturing maize. Agron. J. 62:535–537.Google Scholar
Gilmore, E. C. and Rogers, R. S. 1958. Heat units as a method of measuring maturity in corn. Agron. J. 50:611–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granato, T. C. and Raper, D. 1989. Proliferation of maize roots in response to localized supply of nitrate. J. Exp. Bot. 40:263–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Hergert, G. W., Ferguson, R. B., and Shapiro, C. A. 1995. Fertilizer suggestions for corn. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Publication Number G74-174-A, 4 p.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Growth Analysis. London: Edward Arnold. pp. 51–54, 128–135.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis: Plant Growth Analysis for Beginners. London: Unwin Hyman. pp. 35–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, C. A. and Purcell, L. C. 1997. Interference between hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) and soybean (Glycine max) in response to irrigation and N. Weed Sci. 45:91–97.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Kropff, M., Joenje, W., Bastiaans, L., Habekotte, B., van Oene, H., and Werner, R. 1987. Competition between a sugar beet crop and populations of Chenopodium album L. and Stellaria media L. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 35:525–528.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Ecophysiological characteristics of four maize hybrids and Abutilon theophrasti . Weed Res. 39:271–285.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS® System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Mackay, A. D. and Barber, S. A. 1986. Effect of N on root growth of two corn genotypes in the field. Agron. J. 78:699–703.Google Scholar
Munger, P. H., Chandler, J. M., Cothren, J. T., and Hons, F. M. 1987. Soybean (Glycine max)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interspecific competition. Weed Sci. 35:647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, J. and Staniforth, D. W. 1961. Corn-foxtail competition under various production conditions. Agron. J. 53:1–5.Google Scholar
Potter, J. R. and Jones, J. W. 1977. Leaf area partitioning as an important factor in growth. Plant Physiol. 59:10–14.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize-weed competition: resource competition, light quality, and the whole plant. Field Crops Res. 71:139–150.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. D. 1990. Handbook of nonlinear regression models. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 123–147.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. S., Hanway, J. J., and Benson, G. O. 1997. How a corn plant develops. Special Report No. 48. (Revised). Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Sciences and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service. 21 p.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and the competitiveness of weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russelle, M. P., Wilhelm, W. W., Olson, R. A., and Power, J. F. 1984. Growth analysis based on degree days. Crop Sci. 24:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980. Effects of various densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis L. Beav.) and lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) on N uptake and yields of corn. E. Afric. Agric. For. J. 45:214–221.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Influence of corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) yield. Weed Sci. 46:447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to N supply and form. Plant Soil. 135:287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of weed interference and soil N on four maize hybrids. Agron. J. 86:596–601.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Influence of interference from a mixed weed species stand of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:1293–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Crop manipulation in integrated weed management systems. Weed Sci. 30 (Suppl. 1): 17–24.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groeneveld, R. W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.Google Scholar
Wolfe, D. W., Henderson, D. W., Hsiao, T. C., and Alvino, A. 1988. Interactive water and N effects on senescence of maize II. Photosynthesis decline and longevity of individual leaves. Agron. J. 80:865–870.Google Scholar